The twentieth century historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that “...what has held the American people together in the absence of a common ethnic origin has been precisely a common adherence to ideal of democracy and human rights that, too often transgressed in practice, forever goads us to narrow the gap between practice and principle.”
This is a realistic appraisal, acknowledging our country’s shortcomings while calling citizens to our ideals. Critiques of the US, then, should be two dimensional: how we match up or our ideals and also how we match up to other real nations, past and present.
Note America’s capacity for self-criticism. Here is Schlesinger again: The American “literary canon” does not consist of “apologists for the privileged and the powerful” but includes Emerson, Jefferson, Melville, Whitman, Thoreau.
Schlesinger adds: “There remains, however, a crucial difference between the Western tradition and others. The crimes of the West have produced great movements to end slavery, to raise the status of women, to abolish torture, to combat racism, to defend freedom of inquiry and expression, to advocate personal liberty and human rights….- When the Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square, they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the State of Liberty.” Source: Arthur M Schlesinger The Disuniting of America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 118, 126, 129
The following summarizes the role of the United States among nations. We live in a country that has a history of success and tragic failures in managing differences. However, “there has surely never been a power in history that has won so many wars and acquired, in consequence, so little territory or extracted so few reparations as the United States after 1917.” Why? Wilson’s idealism, the circumstances of our intervention in the First World war, failure n Mexico, long-term effects of anti-imperialists such as Henry David Thoreau and Mark Twain. Source: Felipe Fernandez-Armesto The Americas: The History of a Hemisphere New York: The Modern Library, a division of Random House, 2006) p. 139
In the next posts we will talk about some of the other nations of the world. After that, we will cover how the US has been able to manage diversity.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Diversity - American History
In past diversity blogs, I have summarized several points of view about the modern diversity movement. I have shown how the word “diversity” in a Supreme Court decision issued on June 28, 1978 spawned a vast movement. I have questioned the doctrine that “diversity” is somehow good for American businesses. I have talked about the Individual Differences Perspective of diversity and its lack of boundaries. I have said less about the Social Justice perspective but I will beginning in this post. I have suggested that there is a certain degree of triteness and some unhealthy stereotyping in the individual Differences Perspective.
This post begins to examine history s a guide to diversity.
The Social Justice Perspective often has within it a critique of American society and history.
Here are quotes from books on diversity:
“This book is about the struggle against oppression in organizations and the promise of diversity....Our institutions have failed to eliminate harassment and ongoing discrimination against women of color, men of color, white women, gays, lesbians, people with disabilities, older workers, younger workers, and others who are systematically excluded….We continue to feel the effects of a legacy of oppression: slavery, genocide, indentured servitude, …..(T)he oppressed cry out for immediate action.” Source: Ellie Y. Cross, Judith H. Katz, Frederick A. Miller and Edith W. Seashore, eds. The Promise of Diversity (New York: Irwinn 1994), p. xxi
One book is dedicated (besides to various family members) to “all the women and men who are pioneers, champions and allies in organizations, in appreciation of your commitment to creating workplaces that are liberating for your generation and those that follow.” Source: Frederick A. Miller and Judith H. Katz The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2002)
One book claims that the “ Eurocentric” version of the American dream includes such points of views as, “War is the ultimate competition”, the “Ultimate goal: To be Number One.” “Those who accumulate the most of what costs the most are the winners…” (Norma Carr-Ruffino Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace (USA: Thompson Executive Press, 1994), p. ix, 243)
In my view, these pronouncements profoundly misread the American experience. I will try to show that to be the case in subsequent posts.
The way that I will do that is to refer to the work of distinguished historians. Then I will point out some of the egregious social conditions existing in other modern cultures. Then I will examine the American constitutional set up and what it accomplished. The point of the next several posts is that the American experience embodies Real Diversity and has much to teach the world.
This post begins to examine history s a guide to diversity.
The Social Justice Perspective often has within it a critique of American society and history.
Here are quotes from books on diversity:
“This book is about the struggle against oppression in organizations and the promise of diversity....Our institutions have failed to eliminate harassment and ongoing discrimination against women of color, men of color, white women, gays, lesbians, people with disabilities, older workers, younger workers, and others who are systematically excluded….We continue to feel the effects of a legacy of oppression: slavery, genocide, indentured servitude, …..(T)he oppressed cry out for immediate action.” Source: Ellie Y. Cross, Judith H. Katz, Frederick A. Miller and Edith W. Seashore, eds. The Promise of Diversity (New York: Irwinn 1994), p. xxi
One book is dedicated (besides to various family members) to “all the women and men who are pioneers, champions and allies in organizations, in appreciation of your commitment to creating workplaces that are liberating for your generation and those that follow.” Source: Frederick A. Miller and Judith H. Katz The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2002)
One book claims that the “ Eurocentric” version of the American dream includes such points of views as, “War is the ultimate competition”, the “Ultimate goal: To be Number One.” “Those who accumulate the most of what costs the most are the winners…” (Norma Carr-Ruffino Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace (USA: Thompson Executive Press, 1994), p. ix, 243)
In my view, these pronouncements profoundly misread the American experience. I will try to show that to be the case in subsequent posts.
The way that I will do that is to refer to the work of distinguished historians. Then I will point out some of the egregious social conditions existing in other modern cultures. Then I will examine the American constitutional set up and what it accomplished. The point of the next several posts is that the American experience embodies Real Diversity and has much to teach the world.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Diversity - Stereotyping, conclusion
This post adds some examples of stereotyping from William Sonnenschein The Practical Executive and Workforce Diversity (Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books, 1997) p. 57-8. Sonnenschein produces a table taken from Lee Gardenschwartz and Anita Rowe Managing Diversity (New York: Irwin Professional Publishing, 1993) Gardenshwartz and Rowe contrast what they call Mainstream American Culture with what they call Different Cultures.
People in the former have “Explicit, direct communication. Emphasis on content – meaning found in words.” People in the latter have “Implicit, indirect communication Emphasis on context – meaning found around words.”
The former see "eating as a necessity." The latter see “dining as a social experience.” The former are “Linear. Logical. Sequential,” the latter are “Lateral, holistic, simultaneous. Accepting life’s difficulties.”
It is my contention that these types of generalizations are debatable and either irrelevant to workplaces or potentially harmful. Time spent on contrasting such obscure categories as "Mainstream American culture" and "Different Cultures" is wasteful of resources. The stereotypes defeat the conclusion that we are all individuals.
The next post will move from the topic of stereotyping to a view of history as a guide to Real Diversity.
People in the former have “Explicit, direct communication. Emphasis on content – meaning found in words.” People in the latter have “Implicit, indirect communication Emphasis on context – meaning found around words.”
The former see "eating as a necessity." The latter see “dining as a social experience.” The former are “Linear. Logical. Sequential,” the latter are “Lateral, holistic, simultaneous. Accepting life’s difficulties.”
It is my contention that these types of generalizations are debatable and either irrelevant to workplaces or potentially harmful. Time spent on contrasting such obscure categories as "Mainstream American culture" and "Different Cultures" is wasteful of resources. The stereotypes defeat the conclusion that we are all individuals.
The next post will move from the topic of stereotyping to a view of history as a guide to Real Diversity.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Diversity Movement - Stereotyping
Diversity authors tend to deal with the issue of stereotypes in two ways. First, they criticize “stereotyping” others which they typically define in absolute terms. Here are Renee Bland and Sandra Slipp: “Stereotyping attributes to all individuals in a group the characteristics or tendencies of some." Source: Renee Blank and Sandra Slipp, Voices of Diversity (New York: American Management Association, 1994), p. 8. Here is Kay DuPont: “Stereotyping occurs when we apply our biases to all members of a group. If you were raised to think that all members of a particular ethnic group are lazy, you may still hold this stereotype…” Source: Kay DuPont, CSP (Stands for Certified Speaking Professional) Handling Diversity Issues in the Workplace West (Des Moines: American Media Publishing, 1997), p. 50.
I think we can recognize “all” as a loophole. It allows diversity authors to make lots of comments about individuals in groups and with the single caveat that these generalizations do not apply to every single member of the group, they apparently are not stereotyping. (I wonder if this sort of deep thinking impressed the reviewers at the American Management Association which published Blank and Slipp.)
And, Blank and Slipp and DuPont to engage in what to most people would look like stereotyping:
Bland and Slipp: “Women tend to have a more participatory, interactive management style than men. Latinos tend not to separate work and personal relationships as much as most non-Latinos do.” (p. 7) “Except for Filipinos…the Asian-American described here have strong Buddhist and Confucian backgrounds…” (p. 36)
DuPont: wants managers to know that with regard to business cards, “Native-Born Americans” do not automatically exchange them, “Mexican-Americans” prefer to exchange them at the beginning of a meeting and “Japanese Americans” prefer to exchange cards before shaking hands (or bowing.) With regard to negotiation style, the first group doesn’t worry about building relationships, the second will appeal to personal relationships and the third will try to build a personal relationship before a business relationship. This sort of stereotyping goes on and on without any sourcing (p. 73-74)
I think we can recognize “all” as a loophole. It allows diversity authors to make lots of comments about individuals in groups and with the single caveat that these generalizations do not apply to every single member of the group, they apparently are not stereotyping. (I wonder if this sort of deep thinking impressed the reviewers at the American Management Association which published Blank and Slipp.)
And, Blank and Slipp and DuPont to engage in what to most people would look like stereotyping:
Bland and Slipp: “Women tend to have a more participatory, interactive management style than men. Latinos tend not to separate work and personal relationships as much as most non-Latinos do.” (p. 7) “Except for Filipinos…the Asian-American described here have strong Buddhist and Confucian backgrounds…” (p. 36)
DuPont: wants managers to know that with regard to business cards, “Native-Born Americans” do not automatically exchange them, “Mexican-Americans” prefer to exchange them at the beginning of a meeting and “Japanese Americans” prefer to exchange cards before shaking hands (or bowing.) With regard to negotiation style, the first group doesn’t worry about building relationships, the second will appeal to personal relationships and the third will try to build a personal relationship before a business relationship. This sort of stereotyping goes on and on without any sourcing (p. 73-74)
The Diversity Movement – Is it Trite?, conclusion and transition
When Justice Powell opened up the door to factors other than race being relevant at to achieve diversity (see post on August 26, 2007) consultants raced through with their something-for-everyone approach. So we hear groups talking about their diversity in a manner that is nothing more that their individual personality differences – one likes baseball, not football; one grew up in a town and the other grew up in a mid-size city; one likes cats and the other dogs and on and on. One of the more popular diversity issues has to do with the “generational personality.
The generational personality is a view that the era into which one was born greatly affects and separates people. Baby Boomers are the most talked-about “generation.” This is deceptive because at one level it can sound like an interesting and relevant discussion about the difference between young people and middle age people. But that misreads the thesis. The point the advocates are making is that people born between certain arbitrarily set years gain a common personality that links them and that they carry throughout their life cycle. So, young people don’t mature into old people; rather, baby boomers take a trait – usually the example of supposed defiance of authority is conjured up - through life whereas the generation that proceeds (or follows) them might be more accommodating toward authority throughout the life cycle. Regardless of the merits of this unproven theory, the consultants hustling this notion claim that “It is Diversity management at its most challenging. The obvious markers of race and sex have less clear impact on differences and signal less in the way of differential treatment than do generational differences.” Source: Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and Bob Filipczak, Generations at Work (New York: American Management Association, 2000), p. 25.
The generational personality approach usually requires its promoters to twist reality. At the National Labor-Management Conference of 2006, Commissioners from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service presented a workshop designed to help participants recognize the strengths and obstacles of their own age group (Traditionalists, Boomers, Xers and Millennials in dealing with others. Their promotional material has this come-on: “Can’t we all just get along? Well frankly, no.”
Source: http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=238&itemID=17866
This is nonsense. The generational personality literature written as late as 2000 defines these four groups as four generations with the “Traditionalists” typically World War II veterans. These four groups do not co-exist in the modern workplace because the war veterans would need to be 80 at the youngest. Even if the FMCS staff presented these generatons slightly changed from other varieties (Different presenters of the Gernational Personality theory change the years in a quite facile manner), Traditionalists would be born before 1946 but still young enough to be working in 2006, a dwindling slice of the workforce with alleged different needs that managers need to take into account from those born in 1947. Second, it is insulting to workers and managers to assume that they need to understand this generational personality pseudo-social science to get along. Finally, it is insulting to the Diversity movement to link this oddity to the purpose of Diversity.
A more bizarre example of denying reality is the claim of Ron Zemke and his writing partners in Generations at Work. This book published in 2000 by the American Management Association makes the claim, more than once, that the American population shrank in the two hundred years or so before 1946 due to the hardship of life and the Civil War and the Depression of the 1930’s. Source: Zemke, et al , p. 14, 64. The population in the 1790 census was about 5 Million. It has grown in every decade. I have written on this topic elsewhere. Source: Jim Pruitt, Training January 2002. This criticism of a book published by the AMA is not hair splitting.
The Generational Personality theory is trite and it helps make the Diversity Movement trite because it can entice managers and workers into talking about non-threatening issues like the varying entertainment tastes of Baby Boomers and Millennials and thereby allows them to assert that they are committed to diversity. It reduces the need for hard choices and hard coversations about race, ethnicity and gender. It is not surprising that consultants would exploit this opening and it is not surprising that people would find it easier to talk about this topic than race relations. It is surprising (at least to me) that African Americans have allowed this notion to trivialize the Diversity Movement.
The point of the next posts is that this type of triviality leads to stereotyping people.
The generational personality is a view that the era into which one was born greatly affects and separates people. Baby Boomers are the most talked-about “generation.” This is deceptive because at one level it can sound like an interesting and relevant discussion about the difference between young people and middle age people. But that misreads the thesis. The point the advocates are making is that people born between certain arbitrarily set years gain a common personality that links them and that they carry throughout their life cycle. So, young people don’t mature into old people; rather, baby boomers take a trait – usually the example of supposed defiance of authority is conjured up - through life whereas the generation that proceeds (or follows) them might be more accommodating toward authority throughout the life cycle. Regardless of the merits of this unproven theory, the consultants hustling this notion claim that “It is Diversity management at its most challenging. The obvious markers of race and sex have less clear impact on differences and signal less in the way of differential treatment than do generational differences.” Source: Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and Bob Filipczak, Generations at Work (New York: American Management Association, 2000), p. 25.
The generational personality approach usually requires its promoters to twist reality. At the National Labor-Management Conference of 2006, Commissioners from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service presented a workshop designed to help participants recognize the strengths and obstacles of their own age group (Traditionalists, Boomers, Xers and Millennials in dealing with others. Their promotional material has this come-on: “Can’t we all just get along? Well frankly, no.”
Source: http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=238&itemID=17866
This is nonsense. The generational personality literature written as late as 2000 defines these four groups as four generations with the “Traditionalists” typically World War II veterans. These four groups do not co-exist in the modern workplace because the war veterans would need to be 80 at the youngest. Even if the FMCS staff presented these generatons slightly changed from other varieties (Different presenters of the Gernational Personality theory change the years in a quite facile manner), Traditionalists would be born before 1946 but still young enough to be working in 2006, a dwindling slice of the workforce with alleged different needs that managers need to take into account from those born in 1947. Second, it is insulting to workers and managers to assume that they need to understand this generational personality pseudo-social science to get along. Finally, it is insulting to the Diversity movement to link this oddity to the purpose of Diversity.
A more bizarre example of denying reality is the claim of Ron Zemke and his writing partners in Generations at Work. This book published in 2000 by the American Management Association makes the claim, more than once, that the American population shrank in the two hundred years or so before 1946 due to the hardship of life and the Civil War and the Depression of the 1930’s. Source: Zemke, et al , p. 14, 64. The population in the 1790 census was about 5 Million. It has grown in every decade. I have written on this topic elsewhere. Source: Jim Pruitt, Training January 2002. This criticism of a book published by the AMA is not hair splitting.
The Generational Personality theory is trite and it helps make the Diversity Movement trite because it can entice managers and workers into talking about non-threatening issues like the varying entertainment tastes of Baby Boomers and Millennials and thereby allows them to assert that they are committed to diversity. It reduces the need for hard choices and hard coversations about race, ethnicity and gender. It is not surprising that consultants would exploit this opening and it is not surprising that people would find it easier to talk about this topic than race relations. It is surprising (at least to me) that African Americans have allowed this notion to trivialize the Diversity Movement.
The point of the next posts is that this type of triviality leads to stereotyping people.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Diversity Movement – Is it Trite?, con't
Teachings and writings on diversity often lack content. In this post we will look at one of the catch-phrases of diversity, the so-called “platinum rule.” It’s a diversity “improvement” on Jesus Christ.
The Golden Rule by Jesus of Nazareth is rendered as follows: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Source: Matthew 7:12.
“… (T) he Platinum rule…was described by Dr. Milton Bennet in the book Basic Concepts of intercultural Communications (Intercultural Press, 1998). This is an expansion of the Golden Rule, which has been a time-honored practice that permeates many religious beliefs. In telling us to ‘Treat other as you want to be treated,’ its intentions are sound. It was designed to prevent us from doing harm to others – things that others obviously would not like.”
“With the increasing complexity of our society, we can now add to the Golden Rule in order to account for people’s different and unique needs. This enables us to move beyond ‘one size fits all.’ By assuming that someone else wants what we do, we can’t take into account that person’s uniqueness. The Platinum Rule gives others permission to be different from us, and reminds us to honor that difference.”
“The Platinum Rule is to treat others as they want to be treated.” Source: Tina Rasmussen, Diversity Mosaic Participant Workbook: Developing Cultural Competence (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, published by Pfieffer, 2007), p. 19
Earlier, in 1994, Professor Norma Carr-Ruffino had identified the same improvement on Christianity. Source: Norma Carr-Ruffino, Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace (USA: Thompson Executive Press, 1994), p. 13
It is common to hear diversity trainers talk about the “platinum rule” (often without crediting Bennet, Rasmussen or Carr-Ruffino) without realizing their condescension toward the beliefs of tens of millions of Christians. The Golden Rule is not, as Dr. Milton Bennet opined, “to prevent us from doing harm to others.”
As the second president of the United States, John Adams wrote: “The precept …do as you would be done by, implies an equality which is the real equality of nature and Christianity...” Source: Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot, Seventh Revised Edition (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.: 1953, 1960, 1972, 1985, 2001 printing), p. 95
Isn’t it possible that Jesus was teaching understanding and empathy and equality rather than teaching people to impose their standards on others? (That itself would be a violation of the Golden Rule.)
The Golden Rule by Jesus of Nazareth is rendered as follows: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Source: Matthew 7:12.
“… (T) he Platinum rule…was described by Dr. Milton Bennet in the book Basic Concepts of intercultural Communications (Intercultural Press, 1998). This is an expansion of the Golden Rule, which has been a time-honored practice that permeates many religious beliefs. In telling us to ‘Treat other as you want to be treated,’ its intentions are sound. It was designed to prevent us from doing harm to others – things that others obviously would not like.”
“With the increasing complexity of our society, we can now add to the Golden Rule in order to account for people’s different and unique needs. This enables us to move beyond ‘one size fits all.’ By assuming that someone else wants what we do, we can’t take into account that person’s uniqueness. The Platinum Rule gives others permission to be different from us, and reminds us to honor that difference.”
“The Platinum Rule is to treat others as they want to be treated.” Source: Tina Rasmussen, Diversity Mosaic Participant Workbook: Developing Cultural Competence (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, published by Pfieffer, 2007), p. 19
Earlier, in 1994, Professor Norma Carr-Ruffino had identified the same improvement on Christianity. Source: Norma Carr-Ruffino, Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace (USA: Thompson Executive Press, 1994), p. 13
It is common to hear diversity trainers talk about the “platinum rule” (often without crediting Bennet, Rasmussen or Carr-Ruffino) without realizing their condescension toward the beliefs of tens of millions of Christians. The Golden Rule is not, as Dr. Milton Bennet opined, “to prevent us from doing harm to others.”
As the second president of the United States, John Adams wrote: “The precept …do as you would be done by, implies an equality which is the real equality of nature and Christianity...” Source: Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot, Seventh Revised Edition (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.: 1953, 1960, 1972, 1985, 2001 printing), p. 95
Isn’t it possible that Jesus was teaching understanding and empathy and equality rather than teaching people to impose their standards on others? (That itself would be a violation of the Golden Rule.)
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Diversity Movement – Is it Trite?
In the 1948 presidential campaign in the US, Republican nominee Thomas Dewey said: "The highest purpose to which we could dedicate ourselves is to rediscover the everlasting variety among us." Source: David E. Johnson and Johnny R. Johnson, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White House: Foolhardiness, Folly and Fraud in Presidential Elections, from Andrew Jackson to George W. Bush (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2007), p. 109
Dewey was criticized for the banality of this statement. But was it more banal than the jargon of the modern Diversity movement?
Here is Kodak: “The more diverse the points of view, the broader the vision.” Source: DiversityInc. May 2006, p. 57
Here is Staples:
“Diversity is in our soul.” Source: Diversityinc. June 2006, p. 83
Here is the University of Nebraska:
“Diversity is the multiplicity of people, cultures and ideas that contribute to the richness and variety of life. Diversity broadly encompasses the mixture of similarities and differences along several dimensions: race, national origin, ability, religion, sexual orientation, age and gender. It includes values, cultures, concepts, learning styles and perceptions that individuals possess. By its very nature, diversity fosters inclusiveness, encourages the exchange of new ideas, improves decision-making, and broadens the scope of problem-solving.” (The Strategic Plan for Diversity At The University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2006-2011)
This is jargon and jargon typically deludes people into thinking they are saying something meaningful.
We will next go to another example of jargon. Then we will look at how this leads to stereotyping.
Dewey was criticized for the banality of this statement. But was it more banal than the jargon of the modern Diversity movement?
Here is Kodak: “The more diverse the points of view, the broader the vision.” Source: DiversityInc. May 2006, p. 57
Here is Staples:
“Diversity is in our soul.” Source: Diversityinc. June 2006, p. 83
Here is the University of Nebraska:
“Diversity is the multiplicity of people, cultures and ideas that contribute to the richness and variety of life. Diversity broadly encompasses the mixture of similarities and differences along several dimensions: race, national origin, ability, religion, sexual orientation, age and gender. It includes values, cultures, concepts, learning styles and perceptions that individuals possess. By its very nature, diversity fosters inclusiveness, encourages the exchange of new ideas, improves decision-making, and broadens the scope of problem-solving.” (The Strategic Plan for Diversity At The University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2006-2011)
This is jargon and jargon typically deludes people into thinking they are saying something meaningful.
We will next go to another example of jargon. Then we will look at how this leads to stereotyping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)